Don't you hate people who prefer Full Screen versions?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Last night's thread inspired me to open up a conversation with my co worker today about war movies. I mentioned how much it sucked that there STILL wasn't a widescreen version of Full Metal Jacket, to which he replied, "Who cares? I hate widescreen."

I know taste is subjective and opinions are like assholes and blah blah blah, but, really, why wouldn't you want to see a film the way it was intended? After a half hour trying to explain to him what 'pan and scan' is, and it's nasty aesthetic implications, I realized I was wasting my time. Finally, I put it plainly - "Basically, what it means is, you don't get the whole thing, Lance." His response: "That's what SHE said!" and then he guffawed madly. That doesn't even make sense. I gotta get a new job.

― O Little Town of Overbite, now in grape (roger adultery), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:01 (twenty years ago)

didn't kubby decide on fullscreen, deliberately?

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:05 (twenty years ago)

yes all of kubrick's films are full screen, so it doesn't suck that there isn't a widescreen version.

― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:07 (twenty years ago)

oh snap

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:08 (twenty years ago)

maybe it does suck but, dude, it's what he wanted!!!!!!

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:08 (twenty years ago)

xpost there should be. Why not? have you SEEN any of the DVDs in the Stanley Kubrick Colelction? Pan and scan pandemonium. Any college film class would be barfing into paper bags. lamelamelame

― O'erbite, where the river runs red with coyote blood (roger adultery), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:09 (twenty years ago)

it's how he intended it!! what don't you understand?

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:10 (twenty years ago)

you don't get the whole thing, roger.

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:10 (twenty years ago)

"LANCE"

― cutty (mcutt), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:13 (twenty years ago)

Kubrick aside, it never occurred to me that someone might actually be buying fullscreen DVDs on purpose.

!!!!

― sugarpants (sugarpants), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:14 (twenty years ago)

WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE JUST ACCEPT THAT KUBRICK SUCKS AND YOU SHOULDN'T SEE HIS THINGS IN ANY FORMAT???????

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:14 (twenty years ago)

I can't say I hate them, but I'm genuinely baffled.

Wow. Just... that's crazy talk. That's like saying you PREFER to sit on a public toilet seat that's been peed on by someone else. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?!

― sugarpants (sugarpants), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:15 (twenty years ago)

WHAT ARE THESE BLACK LINES ON THE SCREEN?

― cutty (mcutt), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:16 (twenty years ago)

allyzay OTM

― t0dd swiss, Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:16 (twenty years ago)

Why not? have you SEEN any of the DVDs in the Stanley Kubrick Colelction? Pan and scan pandemonium.

his movies aren't pan and scan, and have never looked any different

― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:20 (twenty years ago)

they supposedly have the matting removed

― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:25 (twenty years ago)

yeah, even though kubrick shot most of his films in 4:3 ratio, he often matted the films for viewing purposes.

look in technical specs at IMDB at each of his films for further info.

― t0dd swiss, Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:27 (twenty years ago)

whoops I didn't realize that. anyways they very likely aren't pan and scan, they're just full frame.

― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:29 (twenty years ago)

pan and scan really only occurs on films that were shot in the 2:35 to 1 ratio. Kubricks were all 1:85 to 1, except for 2001, I think. Which is available in widescreen.

If you want to win your argument, tell your co-worker that the pan-n-scan version of True Romance misses out on Patricia Arquette's nipples!

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:29 (twenty years ago)

that is, shot 4:3, matted for the theaters, etc.

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:29 (twenty years ago)

i like the idea of making widescreen editions of movies that were shot in the academy ratio. just imagine cary grant wandering around a medium shot with his head cut off! awesome.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:34 (twenty years ago)

see the "directors cut" of Touch of Evil, then! Hey, let's cut off Charlton Heston's head in every scene!

― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:36 (twenty years ago)

I just HATE people who don't want to watch a headless Charlton Heston

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:36 (twenty years ago)

just wait til one of these fullscreen jerks gets a widescreen TV and starts complaining about the black bars on either side of the square image.

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:36 (twenty years ago)

is "fullscreen jerks" a porn industry term?

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:38 (twenty years ago)

Herzog prefers fullscreen: says it's more like natural vision

― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 February 2005 02:52 (twenty years ago)

film is adamantly not like "natural vision" in any form, full stop.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 24 February 2005 03:01 (twenty years ago)

Yeah I agree with him - when I go outside and see midgets going apeshit and tying each other to chairs, there are absolutely NO black bars in sight. Ah....nature.

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Thursday, 24 February 2005 03:01 (twenty years ago)

Tell that to Herzog, Brainiac. (xp)

― Who did release magic family out from the base of $499 (deangulberry), Thursday, 24 February 2005 03:02 (twenty years ago)

me and herzog went to the IMAX theater and he was fucking loving it!

― cutty (mcutt), Thursday, 24 February 2005 03:05 (twenty years ago)

he ate three popcorns and two diet cokes.

― cutty (mcutt), Thursday, 24 February 2005 03:05 (twenty years ago)

"Actually, Werner, film is adamantly not like 'natural vision' in any form, full stop."

"I think you are very much an asshole."

― Who did release magic family out from the base of $499 (deangulberry), Thursday, 24 February 2005 03:06 (twenty years ago)

Werner Herzog, I don't even know who you are.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Thursday, 24 February 2005 03:06 (twenty years ago)

http://www.vintageblues.com/the80s/adam_ant.jpg

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 February 2005 03:09 (twenty years ago)

RGJ I am in love with you. We shall marry. OK?

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Thursday, 24 February 2005 03:09 (twenty years ago)

oh shit I ruined it with typos didn't I.

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Thursday, 24 February 2005 03:10 (twenty years ago)

I work for a DVD distribution company, and we've had cases where clerks/managers/owners of video stores have called and complained that their movie is defective because there's black bars at the top & bottom of the screen. I'm not kidding...

― VegemiteGrrl (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 24 February 2005 03:11 (twenty years ago)

you've broken my herta.

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 February 2005 03:13 (twenty years ago)

HAHAHAH "Alone in the Dark" the movie! Starring Christian Slater and Tara Reid as a SCIENTIST!

― Fat Anarchy on Airtube (ex machina), Thursday, 24 February 2005 04:29 (twenty years ago)

Letterboxing is Censorship!!!

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 24 February 2005 04:42 (twenty years ago)

i like the idea of making widescreen editions of movies that were shot in the academy ratio. just imagine cary grant wandering around a medium shot with his head cut off

I've heard that the Kung Fu season one DVDs are like this for no apparent reason. I haven't seen them yet, though.

― Anyone Who Can Pick Up A Frying Pan Pwns Death (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 February 2005 05:13 (twenty years ago)

i've never seen a werner herzog film!

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 24 February 2005 05:31 (twenty years ago)

They're not for you.
I've been present in "marketing" meetings in which "bitter tech guys" cynically claim that "letterbox = importance" and therefore is a "product value enhancer" hence the dark spectre of FALSE WIDESCREEN DVDs.
At least MGM's been sued already.

― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 February 2005 05:32 (twenty years ago)

o amster you must remedy that like michael madsen, herzog flix = a total gas

― j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 24 February 2005 05:34 (twenty years ago)

i might like them, esp the one where all the actors are performing under hypnosis. i've always wondered about that one. oh and "fata morgana." maybe i'll rent them this week.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 24 February 2005 05:36 (twenty years ago)

fata morgana's awesome: proclaimed "science fiction documentary on mirages"
Leonard Cohen & Popul Vuh soundtrack
sea turtles
endless oompah band

― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 February 2005 05:40 (twenty years ago)

i just like the name, "fata morgana."

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 24 February 2005 05:50 (twenty years ago)

it's full screen!

― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 February 2005 06:12 (twenty years ago)

i like the name "Morgana, the Kissing Bandit"

― Stormy Davis (diamond), Thursday, 24 February 2005 06:17 (twenty years ago)

but seriously, I think Fitzcarraldo is probably the most Amateuristian of the Herzog I have seen. so that's where I'd start.

― Stormy Davis (diamond), Thursday, 24 February 2005 06:18 (twenty years ago)

what makes a film "Amateuristian"?

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Thursday, 24 February 2005 06:26 (twenty years ago)

aside from fake tits sprung free every five minutes, I mean

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Thursday, 24 February 2005 06:27 (twenty years ago)

oh, you know ... epic tale of the folly of man, that sort of thing.

― Stormy Davis (diamond), Thursday, 24 February 2005 06:30 (twenty years ago)

lotta titshots

― j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 24 February 2005 06:31 (twenty years ago)

actually I was just joking around with amateurist; just call it .. an inkling that he might take a particular shine to that film.

― Stormy Davis (diamond), Thursday, 24 February 2005 06:31 (twenty years ago)

also preferably written and/or directed by oliver stone

― j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 24 February 2005 06:32 (twenty years ago)

Tommy Lee Jones covered in gold paint being whipped by Joe Pesci?

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Thursday, 24 February 2005 06:33 (twenty years ago)

I don't particularly like widescreen, it's kinda pointless on a squareish TV, and it makes it looks like everything is cut off. Plus, I find it harder to find things that aren't widescreen.

― jel -- (jel), Thursday, 24 February 2005 09:22 (twenty years ago)

http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/information/anamorphic.htm

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Thursday, 24 February 2005 10:19 (twenty years ago)

I really hate people who have the application window filling the whole of their computer screen, esp. if it's a Word document. It makes no sense, but there you go.

― Anna (Anna), Thursday, 24 February 2005 13:58 (twenty years ago)

calm down, come have a cheap cocktail at t'Chapel later

― Sven Bastard (blueski), Thursday, 24 February 2005 14:00 (twenty years ago)

Love to, but skint, so can't.

― Anna (Anna), Thursday, 24 February 2005 14:03 (twenty years ago)

All the people I know who prefer fullscreen have tiny, cheap TVs and can't give up valuable screen real estate to black boxes. Lay off you rich fux!

― Zebra, Alpha Go! (cprek), Thursday, 24 February 2005 14:05 (twenty years ago)

i have a widescreen TV and STILL go full screen. there's nothing more dull than an aspect ratio bore. as it goes i don't think kubrick shot in widescreen, which as any fule kno is only good for shooting coffins and snakes.

― NRQ (Enrique), Thursday, 24 February 2005 14:14 (twenty years ago)

you are a joke

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 February 2005 14:22 (twenty years ago)

pithy.

― NRQ (Enrique), Thursday, 24 February 2005 14:23 (twenty years ago)

thnap

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 February 2005 14:32 (twenty years ago)

i don't know what 'thnap' means, but anyway why did you say that? on basis of that post or others? realize it's a msg board and we all kick each other around, but i don't know what you have against me. not expecting an answer of course, but am nonplussed.

― NRQ (Enrique), Thursday, 24 February 2005 14:36 (twenty years ago)

sorry, it was just a reaction

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 24 February 2005 14:40 (twenty years ago)

You know who supposedly likes full-screen? Children. But I don't really believe it. I think kids want the whole picture too.

Also, we've sorted out the Kubrick thing right? For example, The Shining's original aspect ratio is 1.33:1, but black bars were added so that it could be shown at maximum width in widescreen theaters.

Actually Dr. Strangelove is shot in two ratios!

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 24 February 2005 18:29 (twenty years ago)

does anyone know of a movie shot in a narrowscreen ratio, like say 1:1.55? would be good for an action movie taking place near a waterfall.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 24 February 2005 20:57 (twenty years ago)

Eraserhead is fullscreen.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:01 (twenty years ago)

in silent days they would do different kinds of masking so some shots would be essentially "narrowscreen"--probably a compositional idea that's long overdue for rediscovery.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:03 (twenty years ago)

(there are ways of doing this by effectively "blocking off" large parts of the image on either side by reducing them to big chunks of black or another dark solid color. but it's not quite that same thing as actual masking of the sides.)

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:03 (twenty years ago)

PacMan, Galaga, and Space Invaders had aspect ratios of 7:8 (i.e. vertical). There was a game for Playstation called Namco Museum that had several of these games on it, and it allowed you to play in "original arcade mode".. which meant you were supposed to flip your TV up onto its side!! I did this once and acquired a weird purply green blotch in the corner of my TV screen that never went away.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:55 (twenty years ago)

Brian Eno's made some video art for "vertical format" ie, tvs on their sides.

― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:57 (twenty years ago)

xpost
The purple ink sometimes collects when you do that... maybe...

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 24 February 2005 22:02 (twenty years ago)

ts Brian Eno video art vs Galaga

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 24 February 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

They did this with widescreen plasmas on stage at the Grammys.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 24 February 2005 22:05 (twenty years ago)

They should have made the nominees play each other at Tetris to decide who won.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 24 February 2005 22:23 (twenty years ago)

Didn't you see that part??

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 24 February 2005 22:24 (twenty years ago)

Haha I would love to see Bono just thrashing some hapless noob and then running up on stage to do a victorious folded-arms Russian leg-kick dance. "Ha! Ha!"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 24 February 2005 22:26 (twenty years ago)

Didn't you see that part???

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 24 February 2005 22:30 (twenty years ago)

In all seriousness, sounds like the best show ever.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 24 February 2005 22:30 (twenty years ago)

Could a film nerd fully explain pan and scan to me please.

Personally, I'd rather buy videos that are p'n's, because I have small television set.

― Sasha (sgh), Friday, 25 February 2005 01:46 (twenty years ago)

pan and scan is when you have a widescreen movie (1.66:1, 1.75:1, 2:1, or whatever) where the right and left sides are cropped off in order to fit in a traditional television ratio (1.34:1, i believe, or close--that's the "academy ratio").

however, the cropping is not simply done in the same fashion across the entire film. either a human being or a computer program moves the area of the visible image (the frame, that is) depending on what's in the shot--effectively, panning (pivoting) and scanning (equivalent to a sideways tracking shot, i guess, except done digitally) across the widescreen image. the scanning part can be quite noticeable while you're watching the movie, because it has an effect on the image quite unlike anything that would appear in the film itself.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 25 February 2005 01:56 (twenty years ago)

if you go to the museum of the moving image in astoria (queens), they have (or used to have) a machine where you can "pan and scan" several scenes from "west side story" yourself. the results can be hilarious.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 25 February 2005 01:59 (twenty years ago)

WHEN ARE YOU EVER IN QUEENS

― cutty (mcutt), Friday, 25 February 2005 02:05 (twenty years ago)

QUEENS IS A BOROUGH OF NEW YORK CITY. A BOROUGH, ON LONG ISLAND.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 25 February 2005 05:18 (twenty years ago)

in silent days they would do different kinds of masking so some shots would be essentially "narrowscreen"--probably a compositional idea that's long overdue for rediscovery.

my friend has done this a bunch in short films he's made--it's a great effect, and yeah people should do it more. also this film i saw in sf had a shot like that (for totally convoluted practical reasons involving a release form) and it worked great!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 25 February 2005 05:32 (twenty years ago)

dude when the fuck are any of you ever in queens

― Allyzay Dallas Multi-Pass (allyzay), Friday, 25 February 2005 05:36 (twenty years ago)

intention is a two way thing.

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 25 February 2005 09:17 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.